Free agency prediction | Brandon Ingram

[Euphonetiks]

New Orleans is not letting Ingram go. Griffin loves him and Ingram isn't taking a one year QO after his blood clot scare. The only real question is whether he will be on a 3+1, 4+1, or 5 year contract. I believe we will offer him a full 5 year max no options and he will ask for a 3+1, we end up settling on a 4+1.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

This thread is useless, we aren't letting him go. Griffin already insinuated he's offering the full max ASAP.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much every GM every off-season "insinuates" they intend to keep their higher-talent free agents... no downside to that, and it keeps everyone in a positive mood... just as every pending UFA or RFA is loathe to eliminate their current employer as a competitor for their future services.

It would be naive to think Griffin is any different than any other GM...



He will make an offer that has been weighed very carefully... and maybe so and maybe not coming to the conclusion that Ingram is both a fit on the court beside Zion and a fit in terms of contract and how he wants to see his payroll situation evolve over the next 3-4 years.

(By the way, to be clear, the ESPN writer is only speaking about the executives that he had around the table, I'm almost certain. But while that is a subset of everyone who may have had an informed opinion, it is the entirety of what evidence we have to go on.)

[loserX]

Ingram was the prize in the AD trade, and was everything the Pelicans hoped. There is almost literally zero chance they let him go.

[Euphonetiks]

This thread is useless, we aren't letting him go. Griffin already insinuated he's offering the full max ASAP.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much every GM every off-season "insinuates" they intend to keep their higher-talent free agents... no downside to that, and it keeps everyone in a positive mood... just as every pending UFA or RFA is loathe to eliminate their current employer as a competitor for their future services.

It would be naive to think Griffin is any different than any other GM...



He will make an offer that has been weighed very carefully... and maybe so and maybe not coming to the conclusion that Ingram is both a fit on the court beside Zion and a fit in terms of contract and how he wants to see his payroll situation evolve over the next 3-4 years.

(By the way, to be clear, the ESPN writer is only speaking about the executives that he had around the table, I'm almost certain. But while that is a subset of everyone who may have had an informed opinion, it is the entirety of what evidence we have to go on.)

So your premise is that (1) GM's will lie about their own players, but not others and (2) that David Griffin is so concerned about salary that he is going to let the centerpiece of the AD trade who was an allstar and MIP at 22 years old get away over $3M/yr???

[ADMVP]

This thread is useless, we aren't letting him go. Griffin already insinuated he's offering the full max ASAP.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much every GM every off-season "insinuates" they intend to keep their higher-talent free agents... no downside to that, and it keeps everyone in a positive mood... just as every pending UFA or RFA is loathe to eliminate their current employer as a competitor for their future services.

It would be naive to think Griffin is any different than any other GM...



He will make an offer that has been weighed very carefully... and maybe so and maybe not coming to the conclusion that Ingram is both a fit on the court beside Zion and a fit in terms of contract and how he wants to see his payroll situation evolve over the next 3-4 years.

(By the way, to be clear, the ESPN writer is only speaking about the executives that he had around the table, I'm almost certain. But while that is a subset of everyone who may have had an informed opinion, it is the entirety of what evidence we have to go on.)

Which GMs have let all star wings go when they are RFAs? Especially in a small market, when said player was the center of their trade?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

when said player was the center of their trade?

Ingram was the prize in the AD trade, and was everything the Pelicans hoped. There is almost literally zero chance they let him go.

Nonsense. They're pleased Ingram developed into a prize, but to claim he "was the prize," as-in, he was the key asset?

I say again. Nonsense. Don't try to re-write history.

In virtually every follow-up story to the trade, if there is any element of the trade that was considered "key," it was the draft pick haul. But most considered all of the assets essentially equal to each other.

Don't believe me? That's fine. But don't hate me b/c I thought maybe some screenshots would help refresh some memories...

















So, while Ingram was a surprise, he was not "the prize." And at least among fans... plausibly not among decision-makers... too much has been made of his half-season that earned him that last or next-to-last ASG invite. Anyone who says this is some automatic decision for the NOP front office is just buying into hyperbole and not considering the evidence to the contrary.

[loserX]

And here's the Ringer saying "The biggest prize in this deal is Ingram"

https://www.theringer.com/2019/6/16/18681062/new-orleans-pelicans-anthony-davis-trade-lakers-zion-williamson

And here's the AP saying "The Pelicans’ biggest prize in the deal should be Ingram, if healthy."

https://apnews.com/article/df026886b1e04d1ea6eadd97dce9ed27

And here's CBS Sports saying "If Ingram's health isn't a long-term issue, then he is the main prize..."

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/anthony-davis-trade-pelicans-capitalize-on-lakers-bearing-the-burden-of-protecting-lebron-james-legendary-legacy/

ANd those are just search results that literally contain the word "prize". No idea how many others there are out there that may use different wording.

[BuzzCity]

Quick question...is there anything preventing the Pelicans from trading Ingram to a team for a top pick in this years draft if they ultimately decided they didn’t want to max him out? Is there a rule on how many players can be included in a sign and trade?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

So your premise is that (1) GM's will lie about their own players, but not others and (2) that David Griffin is so concerned about salary that he is going to let the centerpiece of the AD trade who was an allstar and MIP at 22 years old get away over $3M/yr???

1) I have no clue what the first part means. Are you referencing the executives in the ESPN story? If so, are you asserting that even though they were anonymous, they felt some compulsion to lie about what they really thought? If so, that's um. Interesting.

2) "Centerpiece?" See above.

Do I think Griffin will let Ingram get away?

I do not think he will.

But that's a different question than what I've addressed, which is, "is it basically a given automatic decision?"

I don't pretend to know anything beyond what an ESPN writer heard when he sat down with some actual decision-makers for a larger discussion that happened to touch on Ingram as one point of discussion.

Others do pretend to know more than that. Free country. And maybe they're right, and the NBA execs are wrong. Maybe.

Or maybe it's wishful thinking. Or maybe, as said previously, it's just thinking that has been colored by reading a lot of fans' hyperbole.

To finish my thought, I do think there are plausible situations that could develop that could make it a much more tricky negotiation, and yes, it's not totally inconceivable that he's allowed to walk. Mostly inconceivable, yes, but not totally. Before they'd let him walk, I think it's more likely that a sign-and-trade would get worked out. But again, the most likely outcome will be that Ingram remains a Pelican for at least a 2+1 contract.

[loserX]

Quick question...is there anything preventing the Pelicans from trading Ingram to a team for a top pick in this years draft if they ultimately decided they didn’t want to max him out? Is there a rule on how many players can be included in a sign and trade?

Well, they are not allowed to trade him until he is under contract. If the draft happens first, then that means they would have to take back whoever the other team picked, instead of getting to make the pick themselves.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

ANd those are just search results that literally contain the word "prize". No idea how many others there are out there that may use different wording.

I'd searched on "Pelicans won Anthony Davis trade" and similar.

Congrats on finding three. I honestly didn't even think there were that many, given the universality that spoke about the assets in the trade as essentially equivalent elements in, what, 8 different stories found? And two of yours appear to be follow-ups to what I'd found.

Pardon the observation, but you seem to want credit for more than three.

Nah.

I stand by my conclusion that a majority of writers, or at minimum a plurality, considered the assets to be essentially equal.

To be fair to you, I'll grant you that if there were not health questions still very much part of the equation--enough that it is said that that's the reason the Pels declined doing any extension after they obtained him, notably--perhaps then Ingram would have been considered "the" prize. Even for at least one of your links (Ringer, I think), that caveat was stated.

[Texas Chuck]

OP,

1. Start a blog
2. Disable comments
3. Profit

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Quick question...is there anything preventing the Pelicans from trading Ingram to a team for a top pick in this years draft if they ultimately decided they didn’t want to max him out? Is there a rule on how many players can be included in a sign and trade?

Well, they are not allowed to trade him until he is under contract. If the draft happens first, then that means they would have to take back whoever the other team picked, instead of getting to make the pick themselves.

That's not the complicating part, though. Last year like many years, several trades were announced ahead of the draft, but not completed officially until the new season officially started (July 1).

As I've understood it, the complicating part is that Ingram would have to agree to whatever deal was struck b/c it would be a sign-and-trade.

But as I've said, I think for one very much think that's going to be on the table if a max is not offered.

[SmartWentCrazy]

OP, I am positive that in two years, anonymous executives will say you cant max Trae Young because of his defense.

Spoiler: opposing FOs leak stuff all the time and each leak has a purpose. Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team. Its the same thing with GMs leaking that teams will outright sell FRPs— their hoping to normalize something by putting it in the media so they could possibly accomplish that task.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

OP, I am positive that in two years, anonymous executives will say you cant max Trae Young because of his defense.

Spoiler: opposing FOs leak stuff all the time and each leak has a purpose. Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team. Its the same thing with GMs leaking that teams will outright sell FRPs— their hoping to normalize something by putting it in the media so they could possibly accomplish that task.

So, in your world, it is somehow going to influence Brandon Ingram's contract negotiations in the next several weeks because last winter a majority of anonymous execs gathered in a room with an ESPN reporter said they were not persuaded that a half year of performance was enough evidence to give him a max contract.

Now... to the statement, "Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team"... on that much we agree. (yay!)

But you're going to have a difficult time offering some cogent explanation for how any team stood to benefit from that observation... let alone a "majority" of those present. If it wasn't true, then it's a Schrodinger's cat/box situation... NOP was going to offer him the max anyway.

hehe

Okay.

And, wait. You're telling me that on your planet, 3 years of experience, two of them at an ASG performance level, will still yield your vision of anonymous GMs whispering that they don't think Trae will get a max offer (as part of an extension, no less).

hehe

Okay.

Forgive the observation, but sometimes people read, and construct a conclusion based on what they read and using fundamental deduction/induction/logic. And other times, people construct a conclusion... then work backward from there.

[SmartWentCrazy]

OP, I am positive that in two years, anonymous executives will say you cant max Trae Young because of his defense.

Spoiler: opposing FOs leak stuff all the time and each leak has a purpose. Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team. Its the same thing with GMs leaking that teams will outright sell FRPs— their hoping to normalize something by putting it in the media so they could possibly accomplish that task.

So, in your world, it is somehow going to influence Brandon Ingram's contract negotiations in the next several weeks because last winter a majority of anonymous execs gathered in a room with an ESPN reporter said they were not persuaded that a half year of performance was enough evidence to give him a max contract.

Now... to the statement, "Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team"... on that much we agree. (yay!)

But you're going to have a difficult time offering some cogent explanation for how any team stood to benefit from that observation... let alone a "majority" of those present. If it wasn't true, then it's a Schrodinger's cat/box situation... NOP was going to offer him the max anyway.

hehe

Okay.

And, wait. You're telling me that on your planet, 3 years of experience, two of them at an ASG performance level, will still yield your vision of anonymous GMs whispering that they don't think Trae will get a max offer (as part of an extension, no less).

hehe

Okay.

Forgive the observation, but sometimes people read, and construct a conclusion based on what they read and using fundamental deduction/induction/logic. And other times, people construct a conclusion... then work backward from there.

Yes, i believe executives arent altruistic and didnt source this article without trying to somehow benefit their own team. Getting things in the media is a way to steer conversation. Slowly but surely it allows you to shift the conversation.

With Trae, youre already seeing it. Trae famously didnt make this list:

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-execs-poll-luka-doncic-top-young-talent-zion-williamson/

Guessing you dont believe the executives in this case that Trae isnt a top 13 young asset to build around...Ingram did make the list, for the record.

You have literally posted this same thread on multiple different boards. The overwhelming response is that NO is going to max Ingram. You disagree with everyone. Rinse. Repeat. Post on new board.

[youOK]

In the off chance that they wouldn't max him, ( I believe he's an easy max 100%), they would match whatever the RFA was and just trade him. He would have plenty of suitors via trade. No way he ever leaves via FA.

[Buzzard]

OP, I am positive that in two years, anonymous executives will say you cant max Trae Young because of his defense.

Spoiler: opposing FOs leak stuff all the time and each leak has a purpose. Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team. Its the same thing with GMs leaking that teams will outright sell FRPs— their hoping to normalize something by putting it in the media so they could possibly accomplish that task.

So, in your world, it is somehow going to influence Brandon Ingram's contract negotiations in the next several weeks because last winter a majority of anonymous execs gathered in a room with an ESPN reporter said they were not persuaded that a half year of performance was enough evidence to give him a max contract.

Now... to the statement, "Generally that purpose is to somehow benefit their own team"... on that much we agree. (yay!)

But you're going to have a difficult time offering some cogent explanation for how any team stood to benefit from that observation... let alone a "majority" of those present. If it wasn't true, then it's a Schrodinger's cat/box situation... NOP was going to offer him the max anyway.

hehe

Okay.

And, wait. You're telling me that on your planet, 3 years of experience, two of them at an ASG performance level, will still yield your vision of anonymous GMs whispering that they don't think Trae will get a max offer (as part of an extension, no less).

hehe

Okay.

Forgive the observation, but sometimes people read, and construct a conclusion based on what they read and using fundamental deduction/induction/logic. And other times, people construct a conclusion... then work backward from there.

Yes, i believe executives arent altruistic and didnt source this article without trying to somehow benefit their own team. Getting things in the media is a way to steer conversation. Slowly but surely it allows you to shift the conversation.

With Trae, youre already seeing it. Trae famously didnt make this list:

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-execs-poll-luka-doncic-top-young-talent-zion-williamson/

Guessing you dont believe the executives in this case that Trae isnt a top 13 young asset to build around...Ingram did make the list, for the record.

You have literally posted this same thread on multiple different boards. The overwhelming response is that NO is going to max Ingram. You disagree with everyone. Rinse. Repeat. Post on new board.

The OP likes posting about Ingram and he does hope the Hawks can get him. At one time I think he said the chances were 20% and then lowered it to 10%.

I think the chances are closer to 0 to 1% simply because teams do not let all stars walk on their first RFA deal. Its almost unheard of and I cannot think of any off the top of my head. Ingram is his favorite free agent and I don't hold that against the OP; I just think he will be watching him in a Pelicans uniform.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Yes, i believe executives arent altruistic and didnt source this article without trying to somehow benefit their own team. Getting things in the media is a way to steer conversation. Slowly but surely it allows you to shift the conversation.

I'm trying hard, believe me. But I remain oblivious. Help me please. Educate me. I'm not that smart. And so, I cannot grasp this vision that somehow someway expressing one's uncertainty as an unidentifed exec that BI in a half-season has established himself as a max contract player would somehow "benefit" one's own team. It's an RFA situation. NOP *does* ultimately, of course, call their own shots and controls the situation. It's hard to understand why their evaluation of the player would be somehow influenced by outsiders. And if this was the beginning of some conspiracy to "shift the conversation," at least among the fans who actually pay attention to media, it's clearly fallen woefully short based on what is said in this thread.

With Trae, youre already seeing it. Trae famously didnt make this list:

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-execs-poll-luka-doncic-top-young-talent-zion-williamson/

Guessing you dont believe the executives in this case that Trae isnt a top 13 young asset to build around...Ingram did make the list, for the record.

"Famously?"

Well, again, I suppose I'm Mr. Oblivious, b/c I wasn't even aware that someone did that. So, thank you for the enlightenment.

"Don't believe the executives?"

Um. Wait. I think there must be some mix-up.

Of the two of us, I'm not the one who doesn't believe the executives.

That would be you. Just you.

Now, I do think I know where you were going with that, but you're confounding two different things. You can't take my comment about the likelihood of Trae's max extension to mean that he's necessarily someone that would appear in a given NBA exec's list of top 5 young players. I'm surprised, but not all that surprised. A top 5 list is not a very long list, of course.

I would be super surprised if he didn't show up in most execs' top 10, though.

"Brandon Ingram did make the list"

Yes, he did. A sparkling 12% included him on their ballots, so that must mean he's deserving of a max offer, right? I mean, a mere 88% treated him like 100% treated my PG. Surely Griffin thinks like the 12%, not the 88%, right?

Well, again it seems you're making a counterpoint to a point that was never made. Go back and review what I said. Not what you think I said.

Do I think Griffin will let Ingram get away?

I do not think he will.

But that's a different question than what I've addressed, which is, "is it basically a given automatic decision?"

I don't pretend to know anything beyond what an ESPN writer heard when he sat down with some actual decision-makers for a larger discussion that happened to touch on Ingram as one point of discussion.

Others do pretend to know more than that. Free country. And maybe they're right, and the NBA execs are wrong. Maybe.

Or maybe it's wishful thinking. Or maybe, as said previously, it's just thinking that has been colored by reading a lot of fans' hyperbole.

To finish my thought, I do think there are plausible situations that could develop that could make it a much more tricky negotiation, and yes, it's not totally inconceivable that he's allowed to walk. Mostly inconceivable, yes, but not totally. Before they'd let him walk, I think it's more likely that a sign-and-trade would get worked out. But again, the most likely outcome will be that Ingram remains a Pelican for at least a 2+1 contract.

It bothers you to think it's not an automatic decision, but even here with this list cited--if we assume as you seem to want to assume, a player should make the list if he's going to be worth the max--the overwhelming majority, 88%, almost 9 out of 10, do not consider him top 5.

You have literally posted this same thread on multiple different boards.

I've had the conversation with other Hawks fans on a couple of occasions, including one that dates back to last spring on a whole other site. Is that a problem that someone would do that?

So, your comment made me go look, and I now see that, indeed, there was a thread on the Gen Board two months ago. Is that a problem?

Now that the season is over, there's been increased discussion about free agents, and BI has begun to stand out in some of the threads on this board. The thought occurred to me to post my prediction here based on that, and the fact that I've been sporadically monitoring conventional wisdom on him anyhow.

Throwing myself on the mercy of your kangaroo court, this is not necessarily the same audience that visits the Gen board; I know myself, I only visit there occasionally. This certainly is not the same audience that visits the Hawks board with any regularity.

The overwhelming response is that NO is going to max Ingram. You disagree with everyone.

It is indeed the overwhelming response. I do indeed disagree with that.

This isn't a popularity contest, though. It's a discussion board. Reasoning and substance are welcome. It's not that anyone will necessarily be persuaded to think differently, but it is that we each have the opportunity to offer our best reasoning and substance in support of the conclusion we've come to... and sometimes that can ruffle some feathers, but as long as we all keep it about the reasoning and the substance that should be okay.

What's noticeable if not compelling is when someone such as yourself attempts to shout down the reasoning and substance by going outside of reasoning and substance... such as, by complaining that the conversation has been had with two other audiences, and that, yes, matter of fact, it's the popularity of a conclusion that matters, not the support for the conclusion that matters.

That's because, no one bothers to go outside of reasoning and substance when they think all the reason and substance are on their side of the discussion. Everyone understands, the best way to defeat an argument you disagree with is to simply counter the points made with substance. It's really only when one thinks s/he might be at a disadvantage on that front that s/he defaults to some other route of attack.

Done here. You're welcome to the last word between us.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Not taking the bait except to say, people read into statements what they want, and I have to be okay with that. But what I don't have to do is participate in discussions with people who do so to such a degree as to be disingenuous and irresponsibly accusatory.

Here's exactly what I've said most recently, which is different in some ways from what I used to say. But the one thing that has never changed is that I read and put together GM Schlenk's words to say he's looking for an infusion into the ATL roster that is similar to what Iggy brought to the GSW roster back-when. There are a number of players who Schlenk might think fits that role. I'm also consistent that Schlenk may or may not consider Ingram someone worthy of a max.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1991181#p84490056